The case is State v. Sieyes; six Justices (including the Justice who dissented in part) took this view, two didn’t reach the question, and one signed the majority opinion but with the notation “result only,” which I take it also means that she didn’t express a view on the question. [More]Wonder how this will affect McDonald...?
[Via Ed Stone]
I no sooner get this posted than I see Dave Workman is on it.
3 comments:
Maybe, just maybe, there is a glimmer of hope/
Nope, in Heller, the 9 robed dictators said its an individual right-that can be infringed by gov anyway that they like, and Scalia gave an outline of how to do the infringing.
I like this ruling, but Cliton and the UN are going to try to overide the 2A with that treaty, and I wouldn't put it past the Senate to go along for the ride.
Post a Comment